"Okay," I said, changing gears. "Then what is your least favorite subject in school? What do you like the least?" Timothy's answer? "Language." And as he said it, he backed up his answer with an affirming nod.
Yet I can't think of a more relevant subject, can you? Language is something that we use on a daily basis for the rest of our lives. I'm wondering if that's why language is at the heart of this year's Desiring God National Conference, which begins a week from today.
Right now there's a lot of controversy in Christian circles regarding the right use of language. So yesterday I forwarded to my fellow elders an article by Nathan Busenitz that appeared in Pulpit Magazine. You can check it out here.
The elders responded with some very helpful feedback. Since this correspondence was initially private, I'll leave it to them as to whether they want to copy and paste their remarks in the Comments section. Certainly I would love to hear from you, too. So after you read Busenitz' write-up on Harsh Language, be sure to come back to TruthWalk and leave a comment. No doubt we can get a good discussion going on this vital topic!
Sarcasm and its wittiness can be defensive as well as offensive, an invisible layer of barbed fencing, keeping things on a superficial level and warning off would be friends. I have been convicted of the darkness of my tongue; when I am at my most witty, the words are not usually motivated by love or edification, but by fear or pain.
ReplyDeleteI think harsh language has self righteousness at its foundation. The speaker may not intend it, but it will color his/her perceptions a little at a time, eroding the love and grace that should mark our thoughts, words and deeds.
What place should sarcasm or cutting words hold in our lives as Christians? I think there is enough in our world that is coarse, dark and sharp. We are called to be different. Romans 12:2, Philippians 4:8. Maybe, because of my own sin, I am on the extreme end of this argument; I cannot see how we can focus on the noble, the praiseworthy, the things that will transform us and renew our minds, the things that will help us to know God's "good, pleasing and perfect will"... and still be sarcastic or cutting.
As I read John Piper's comments about being tenderhearted, I remembered a song my mother taught me:
ReplyDelete"Be ye kind...
one to another...
tenderhearted...
forgiving one another...
even as God...
for Christ's sake...
hath forgiven yooooou.....
Ephesians 4 and thirty two...."
Well, After reading Nathan's article, I have a few thoughts. First, I feel that Mark Driscoll and John Piper are both SOLID theologians and herald's of the gospel. I have personally never read a book by Driscoll or listened to sermon, so i don't know what type of harsh language he uses. Therefore, i will not speak negatively about my brother in Christ. But, i do know that he is known for speaking truth boldly and not compromising the gospel in spite of the fact that his mega church is in a very difficult area.
ReplyDeleteSo, i feel like the author kind of put a bad light on Driscoll. I think we should use our energies and influence on exposing false prophets and those who are missing the mark. We as Christians have much bigger battles to fight in the broader evangelical community. I think we are splitting hairs on this one.
BUT, personally i do not believe that sarcasm and coarse talk are the best methods a Christ-follower should use. I know i spend enough time repenting of the use of my tongue, i do not have time to condemn other brothers.
I say, "Preach the TRUE gospel and be bold."
Amanda Jones
Shut up, Amanda. Who cares what you think?
ReplyDeleteNow, that would be an example of harsh language. :)
And of course, I'm kidding. I do appreciate your comments. But to give you an idea of what Driscoll would say, let me share a few excerpts from his book "Vintage Jesus," that blogger Tim Challies' included in his review of the book:
"For example, when looking at the humanity of Jesus, Driscoll chooses to say that Jesus told the Pharisees 'that their moms had shagged the Devil.' ... Similarly, a heading in the chapter entitled 'Why did Jesus’ Mom Need to Be a Virgin' reads, “Scripture does not teach that Mary knocked boots with God.” While it is true that the Bible does not indicate that there was some kind of sexual relationship between Mary and God, using this particular term seems beyond good taste. The same phrase (and a passing supposedly-humorous reference to incest) appears on the book’s first page:
'Roughly two thousand years ago, Jesus was born in a dumpy, rural, hick town, not unlike those today where guys change their own oil, think pro wrestling is real, find women who chew tobacco sexy, and eat a lot of Hot Pockets with their uncle-daddy. Jesus’ mom was a poor, unwed teenage girl who was mocked for claiming she conceived via the Holy Spirit. Most people thought she concocted a crazy story to cover the “fact” she was knocking boots with some guy in the backseat of a car at the prom. Jesus was adopted by a simple carpenter named Joseph and spent the first thirty years of his life in obscurity, swinging a hammer with his dad.'
While applauding Driscoll's humorous wit, Challies goes on to say, "What bothers me is not just the use of these phrases, but the utter non-necessity of doing so. They are designed to illicit laughs and perhaps show people how edgy Driscoll is. But they are, in my estimation, completely unnecessary, especially since Driscoll is perfectly capable of being humorous without being dirty. The book would not suffer at all without them. It is easy to gain laughs through such words and phrases, but just because we are able do so, I don’t think we necessarily should."
To read the rest of Challies' review, go to http://www.challies.com/archives/book-reviews/book-review-vintage-jesus-by-mark-driscoll.php.
Personally, I don't have a problem with sarcasm, so long as it is used SPARINGLY for a specific PURPOSE toward a specific AUDIENCE. I think Paul's use of sarcasm in 2 Corinthians is a good case in point. But it is definitely the exception rather than the rule. And I think we need to be EXTREMELY careful about ANY filthy language - or anything that could be construed as filthy - coming out of our mouth. Ephesians 4:29 is emphatically clear on this point: "Let no corrupt word proceed out of your mouth...." In chapter five, after saying that fornication and all uncleanness should not even be NAMED among the saints, he then adds "neither filthiness, nor coarse jesting, which are not fitting."
This tells me that I should err on the side of caution. Public figures should take an extra measure of caution, given their visibility and influence.
But having said all that, I do agree that Mark Driscoll seems to have a great heart for God, a love for the church, and unwavering commitment to the truth, and is marked by sound theology. I'm hoping this debate on language - whether at the Desiring God national conference or in the comments section TruthWalk - will help us sharpen one another on large scales and small scales, that we might all be better and more effective servants for our Lord Jesus Christ.
Thanks PM for the response. I normally don't comment on these things, but for some reason this one really got a response out me! :)
ReplyDeleteI definitely would say that those excerpts are inappropriate. As I said, i have not read his stuff. I just feel weird commenting on something i have not read.
I am not a fan of sarcasm and often encourage the youth not to use it. I loved and agreed with the other comments that were made here by church members.
The point i was making is that i feel like the blogger who wrote the article is fighting the wrong battle. I felt like the tone of the article was more of a critique of Driscoll than a discussion of the proper use of language. Language is very important, but when i read the blog it made me question Driscoll, not my use of language. I guess my issue is not the topic of language but the article itself.
Driscoll is "on our side." He knows and preaches the whole counsel of God. I guess in my opinion there are bigger battles to be focusing on and fighting for.
But thats just me...
Amanda Jones
Amanda, I see your point and it is well taken. Perhaps we can take away a couple lessons from this discussion: (1) Believers should be gracious in their communication; (2) Believers should be guarded in their criticisms! It's always tragic when one gets wounded or killed by "friendly fire." Driscoll is a disciple of Jesus Christ, an ardent defender of Gospel truth. We can certainly appreciate the man though we may not applaud all his mannerisms.
ReplyDeleteOh dear, I laughed so hard at the little joke in this thread.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that we need to remember two things, in our interactions with each other:
1) Is my word or deed helpful?
2) Does my word or deed represent a 'stumbling block' for a weaker believer?
This might get to the point of necessity. If you can make the same point without the sarcasm, it's probably a better approach. We don't want our words or deeds to cause others to stumble.
Thanks for that ensightful message! I for one, not only find sarcasm distasteful from the pulpit but from every day language as well. I know some (especially some of the youth of today) find sarcasm almost a pleasure. They hear it on TV in almost every SITCOM (I haven't watched any SITCOMS in years but the bits from commercials tells it all). Often people think sarcasm is smart and witty. I know there is a place and time for tasteful light-hearted sarcasm, but most of the sarcasm I hear I find pessimistic and down-right rude. The blade of sarcasm is sharp and its target is the heart. What I don't like about sarcasm is that it uses humor to confront. I believe confronting anyone should be done with firmness yet with care and sincerity, letting those you are confronting know that you have their best interest at heart. Some people see some of the words of Jesus as sarcastic yet sarcasm is more than just the words used, but the tone of voice and body language that accompanies the words. Most of the time, the Word of God does not express the tone or body language expression that accompanies the words. Often Jesus answered questions with his own questions. I do not believe he intended to be sarcastic but just used those words as a way to cause the people to realize that the questions they were asking was trivial compared to what they really needed to hear. And His questions caused them to look deep within themselves and ponder on what He was saying.
ReplyDeleteMark Driscoll “idolizes” a caricature of American maleness, so he uses gruff language and rejects what he considers “chick-a-fied” refinements. From what I heard him say, he thinks it’s his Biblical duty to portray that exaggerated model and reject those that don’t live up to it.
ReplyDeleteThe conservative Christian gets offended by his word & phrase choices, but I think the offense goes well beyond that. The blog post is regarding language, so I’ll stop there.
Interestingly, R. Kent Hughes has a chapter entitled "Discipline of the Tongue" in his outstanding book, "Disciplines of a Godly Man." But I must admit that he does use the notion of "American maleness" (in part) to persuade his readership to cultivate the spiritual disciplines. Take, for instance, his closing appeal at the end of the first chapter: "Do we have the sweat in us? Will we enter the gymnasium of divine discipline? ... I invite you into God's Gym in the following chapters - to some sanctifying sweat - to some pain and great gain. God is looking for a few good men!"
ReplyDeleteBut, like you said, this particular posting is about language. :)
A lot of men respond well to pep talks from a “coach.” Running laps, doing drills, fielding balls and reviewing plays makes sense to them, but has little resonance for me. Nevertheless, I don’t consider that type of language wrong, just tiresome and trite.
ReplyDeleteFrom what I’ve gathered, Mark Driscoll doesn’t choose his language based on limited experience, he chooses it based on what he thinks are the types of things men ought to say.
Mark Driscoll holds a standard of masculinity that isn’t necessarily Biblical and from that ideology comes offensive* and exclusionary** language. From the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaketh. . .
I’m not intimating that he is evil or a viper; no one is perfect. Though, I do question why he is lauded as a good pastor with some tolerable rough edges. I guess people say, “Don’t throw the dude out with the dirty laundry.” I seriously wonder how those rough edges would be accepted in other contexts. What if he was “batting for the other team?”
* offensive -- not the light-in-the-darkness offensive, but the hair-in-your-food offensive.
** exclusionary -- not excluding heresy / bad doctrine, but being a respecter of persons and excluding people that don’t fit his own ideology
www.gty.org/Resources/articles/2643
ReplyDelete